Trend analysis based on reliability, or mean time between failure, could add another dimension to the safety management process. One could theoretically do trend analyses of aircraft components, structures, etc. However, because of the redundancies built into the design of aircraft structures and systems, the failure of any single component does not pose a threat to continued safe operation. In fact, FAA-approved minimum equipment fists allow aircraft operation with some equipment out of commission.
Also, for economic reasons, airlines and manufacturers already use component reliability analyses to keep their aircraft in the air. For at least the timeframe of this study—the next 10 years—the committee believes that a focused effort to determine mean times between failure, which would require collecting and analyzing vast amounts of data, might not identify specific safety trends and would bog down the safety.
Data on incidents involving jet transport airplanes provide a slightly different picture. To begin with, many organizations do not have adequate incident reporting systems, and it is very difficult to obtain complete and consistent records of incidents. Whereas accidents tend to be highly visible, are consistently reported, and are carefully investigated, incidents include a broader range of situations and cause factors, are so numerous that available resources in industry and government are insufficient to conduct thorough investigations of most reported incidents, and reporting them often depends on the initiative of the personnel involved who may have a conflict of interest if the report is likely to have negative consequences for them.
In addition, broadly accepted definitions of what constitutes an incident are imprecise and, in practical settings, they are interpreted differently by different organizations and individuals. Table shows data resulting from an examination of 2, incidents worldwide that were reported over a year period for aircraft built by a particular manufacturer. The aircraft included in this examination accounted for about one-fourth of the world's large transport airplanes.
The reader should keep in mind that manufacturers have a special interest in preventing incidents and accidents associated with system malfunction. Therefore, a jet transport manufacturer's database may be biased toward incidents in which aircraft system performance is involved.
Wherever possible, each incident was broken down into a sequence of events. Table shows the number and percentage of the cause factors associated with each event. Figure shows a breakdown of all cause factors for all events by aircraft system.
This analysis gave equal emphasis to all factors in the chains of events. Because accidents are rare, analyses of accident records can provide guidance on broad areas of concern but are inherently incapable of preventing other types of accidents.
Incidents are more frequent and are a rich source of safety data, but the quantity of the data is so large that it is difficult to identify meaningful risks and avoid unfruitful diversions. The process is complicated because some accidents are truly unique and may not be indicative of future hazards, whereas some seemingly inconsequential incidents are disasters waiting to happen.
FIGURE Airplane-related cause factors in worldwide incidents involving large commercial jet aircraft produced by a particular manufacturer about 25 percent of the worldwide commercial jet fleet , through Accidents and serious incidents almost always have multiple causes, although many analyses and safety records focus on "primary" causes.
This narrow focus diverts attention from other cause factors that were essential links in the chain of events and that should also stimulate corrective action to prevent future accidents. With careful analysis, however, a safety management process can identify accident prevention strategies that eliminate factors "traps" that recur in many different accidents. Such a process could effectively reduce many different types of accidents by eliminating the cofactors necessary for their occurrence.
Personnel error human factors is the most common cause of both incidents and accidents. CFIT and loss-of-control accidents, which almost by definition involve human factors, account for more than half of all fatal accidents. Similarly, inappropriate crew response and fuel exhaustion, which are also essentially human factors problems, are the major contributors to propulsion-related fatal accidents. Although aircraft system malfunctions are involved in a relatively small fraction of aircraft incidents and accidents, improvements in aircraft systems often improve safety by making aircraft more robust—providing flight crews with more accurate information to improve their situational awareness and reducing the likelihood that a human error will result in an incident or accident.
Finding Safety management processes that focus on the primary causes of accidents are reactive and are unlikely to address some important cause factors adequately.
Data from investigations of accidents and incidents are essential for planning proactive corrective action, which should address all important cause factors. Settle, Wash. Washington, D. Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, 8th ed. As part of the national effort to improve aviation safety, the Federal Aviation Administration FAA chartered the National Research Council to examine and recommend improvements in the aircraft certification process currently used by the FAA, manufacturers, and operators.
Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website. Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.
Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text. This area of HCI, now often called social computing , is one of the most rapidly developing. Online communities, such as Linux communities and GitHub, employ social computing to produce high-quality knowledge work.
The third way that HCI moved beyond the desktop was through the continual, and occasionally explosive diversification in the ecology of computing devices.
Before desktop applications were consolidated, new kinds of device contexts emerged, notably laptops, which began to appear in the early s, and handhelds, which began to appear in the mids. One frontier today is ubiquitous computing: The pervasive incorporation of computing into human habitats — cars, home appliances, furniture, clothing, and so forth. Desktop computing is still very important, though the desktop habitat has been transformed by the wide use of laptops.
To a considerable extent, the desktop itself has moved off the desktop. Copyright terms and licence: pd Public Domain information that is common property and contains no original authorship. Computers are in phones, cars, meeting rooms, and coffee shops. The focus of HCI has moved beyond the desktop, and its focus will continue to move. HCI is a technology area, and it is ineluctably driven to frontiers of technology and application possibility.
The special value and contribution of HCI is that it will investigate, develop, and harness those new areas of possibility not merely as technologies or designs, but as means for enhancing human activity and experience. The movement of HCI off the desktop is a large-scale example of a pattern of technology development that is replicated throughout HCI at many levels of analysis. HCI addresses the dynamic co-evolution of the activities people engage in and experience, and the artifacts — such as interactive tools and environments — that mediate those activities.
HCI is about understanding and critically evaluating the interactive technologies people use and experience. But it is also about how those interactions evolve as people appropriate technologies, as their expectations, concepts and skills develop, and as they articulate new needs, new interests, and new visions and agendas for interactive technology. Reciprocally, HCI is about understanding contemporary human practices and aspirations, including how those activities are embodied, elaborated, but also perhaps limited by current infrastructures and tools.
HCI is about understanding practices and activity specifically as requirements and design possibilities envisioning and bringing into being new technology, new tools and environments. It is about exploring design spaces, and realizing new systems and devices through the co-evolution of activity and artifacts, the task-artifact cycle. Artifacts are designed in response, but inevitably do more than merely respond. Through the course of their adoption and appropriation , new designs provide new possibilities for action and interaction.
Ultimately, this activity articulates further human needs, preferences, and design visions. Understanding HCI as inscribed in a co-evolution of activity and technological artifacts is useful. Most simply, it reminds us what HCI is like, that all of the infrastructure of HCI, including its concepts, methods, focal problems, and stirring successes will always be in flux. Moreover, because the co-evolution of activity and artifacts is shaped by a cascade of contingent initiatives across a diverse collection of actors, there is no reason to expect HCI to be convergent, or predictable.
This is not to say progress in HCI is random or arbitrary, just that it is more like world history than it is like physics. One could see this quite optimistically: Individual and collective initiative shapes what HCI is, but not the laws of physics. The work of a handful of people, it became the direct antecedent for the modern graphical user interface. A second implication of the task-artifact cycle is that continual exploration of new applications and application domains, new designs and design paradigms, new experiences, and new activities should remain highly prized in HCI.
We may have the sense that we know where we are going today, but given the apparent rate of co-evolution in activity and artifacts, our effective look-ahead is probably less than we think. Moreover, since we are in effect constructing a future trajectory, and not just finding it, the cost of missteps is high. The co-evolution of activity and artifacts evidences strong hysteresis, that is to say, effects of past co-evolutionary adjustments persist far into the future.
For example, many people struggle every day with operating systems and core productivity applications whose designs were evolutionary reactions to misanalyses from two or more decades ago.
Of course, it is impossible to always be right with respect to values and criteria that will emerge and coalesce in the future, but we should at least be mindful that very consequential missteps are possible. This design is intended to provoke reaction and challenge thinking about domestic technologies. The remedy is to consider many alternatives at every point in the progression. It is vitally important to have lots of work exploring possible experiences and activities, for example, on design and experience probes and prototypes.
If we focus too strongly on the affordances of currently embodied technology we are too easily and uncritically accepting constraints that will limit contemporary HCI as well as all future trajectories.
HCI is not fundamentally about the laws of nature. Rather, it manages innovation to ensure that human values and human priorities are advanced, and not diminished through new technology.
This is why usability is an open-ended concept, and can never be reduced to a fixed checklist. The contingent trajectory of HCI as a project in transforming human activity and experience through design has nonetheless remained closely integrated with the application and development of theory in the social and cognitive sciences.
Even though, and to some extent because the technologies and human activities at issue in HCI are continually co-evolving, the domain has served as a laboratory and incubator for theory. The origin of HCI as an early case study in cognitive engineering had an imprinting effect on the character of the endeavor. From the very start, the models, theories and frameworks developed and used in HCI were pursued as contributions to science: HCI has enriched every theory it has appropriated.
For example, the GOMS Goals, Operations, Methods, Selection rules model, the earliest native theory in HCI, was a more comprehensive cognitive model than had been attempted elsewhere in cognitive science and engineering; the model human processor included simple aspects of perception , attention, short-term memory operations, planning, and motor behavior in a single model.
But GOMS was also a practical tool, articulating the dual criteria of scientific contribution plus engineering and design efficacy that has become the culture of theory and application in HCI. The focus of theory development and application has moved throughout the history of HCI, as the focus of the co-evolution of activities and artifacts has moved.?
This initial conception of HCI theory was broadened as interactions became more varied and applications became richer. For example, perceptual theories were marshaled to explain how objects are recognized in a graphical display, mental model theories were appropriated to explain the role of concepts — like the messy desktop metaphor — in shaping interactions, active user theories were developed to explain how and why users learn and making sense of interactions.
In each case, however, these elaborations were both scientific advances and bases for better tools and design practices. This dialectic of theory and application has continued in HCI.
It is easy to identify a dozen or so major currents of theory, which themselves can by grouped roughly into three eras: theories that view human-computer interaction as information processing, theories that view interaction as the initiative of agents pursuing projects, and theories that view interaction as socially and materially embedded in rich contexts.
To some extent, the sequence of theories can be understood as a convergence of scientific opportunity and application need: Codifying and using relatively austere models made it clear what richer views of people and interaction could be articulated and what they could contribute; at the same time, personal devices became portals for interaction in the social and physical world, requiring richer theoretical frameworks for analysis and design.
Successive theories both challenged and enriched prior conception of people and interaction. All of these theories are still relevant and still in use today in HCI. The sequence of theories and eras is of course somewhat idealized. People still work on GOMS models; indeed, all of the major models, theories and frameworks that ever were employed in HCI are still in current use.
Indeed, they continue to develop as the context of the field develops. GOMS today is more a niche model than a paradigm for HCI, but has recently been applied in research on smart phone designs and human-robot interactions. The challenge of integrating, or at least better coordinating descriptive and explanatory science goals with prescriptive and constructive design goals is abiding in HCI.
There are at least three ongoing directions — traditional application of ever-broader and deeper basic theories, development of local, sometimes domain dependent proto-theories within particular design domains, and the use of design rationale as a mediating level of description between basic science and design practice.
One of the most significant achievements of HCI is its evolving model of the integration of research and practice. Those who studied and worked in HCI saw it as a crucial instrument to popularize the idea that the interaction between a computer and the user should resemble a human-to-human, open-ended dialogue.
Initially, HCI researchers focused on improving the usability of desktop computers i. However, with the rise of technologies such as the Internet and the smartphone, computer use would increasingly move away from the desktop to embrace the mobile world. Also, HCI has steadily encompassed more fields:. Practitioners of HCI tend to be more academically focused. They're involved in scientific research and developing empirical understandings of users.
Conversely, UX designers are almost invariably industry-focused and involved in building products or services—e. With the broader span of topics that HCI covers, UX designers have a wealth of resources to draw from, although much research remains suited to academic audiences. Those of us who are designers also lack the luxury of time which HCI specialists typically enjoy.
So, we must stretch beyond our industry-dictated constraints to access these more academic findings. When you do that well, you can leverage key insights into achieving the best designs for your users. Interactions between computers and humans should be as intuitive as conversations between two humans—and yet many products and services fail to achieve this. So, what do you need to know so as to create an intuitive user experience? Human psychology? Emotional design?
Specialized design processes? The answer is, of course, all of the above, and this course will cover them all. Human-computer interaction HCI is about understanding what it means to be a user of a computer which is more complicated than it sounds , and therefore how to create related products and services that work seamlessly. This goes to show the immense demand in the market for professionals equipped with the right computer and IT skills. This course provides a comprehensive introduction and deep dive into HCI, so you can create designs that provide outstanding user experiences.
Title: Professor and Associate Dean Email: conwaybr erau. At Langley he held positions ranging from research engineer working on advanced spacecraft control system research to service as Chief of the Instrument Research Division.
Conway served as Assistant Chief, of the Flight Electronics Division at NASA - Langley, where he managed electronics and instrumentation research and applications to spacecraft and aircraft flight experiments.
In the early 's he was a Principal Investigator and project engineer for a Skylab space flight astronaut-manned experiment Experiment T to assess disturbances to spacecraft control systems from onboard crew movements. Download C. Title: Associate Professor Email: cuevash1 erau. Haydee M. She has a Ph. She is first author or co-author on 98 refereed publications 20 journal articles, 12 book chapters, and 66 conference proceedings and 25 technical reports, and is lead presenter or co-presenter on conference and workshop presentations 89 peer-reviewed and 17 invited.
Title: Professor Email: esserd erau. Esser was a member of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Flight Department from to , and has been a member of the Aeronautical Science Department since that time. In , he was awarded the M. Professor Esser completed the Ph. Degree in Organization and Management Leadership from Capella University, again graduating at the top of his class. Title: Professor Email: frien9b8 erau. Mark A. He has worked as a safety consultant, trainer, expert witness, and author.
His text, Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health, a top-selling book in the field, is currently in its fifth edition. Hampton was a member of the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Flight Department from to , and has been a member of the Aeronautical Science Department since that time. His undergraduate degree from Embry-Riddle is in Aeronautical Studies and he holds both pilot and maintenance certifications from the FAA. Title: Professor Email: sabelj erau.
John Sabel is an attorney and airline pilot, currently flying as an Airbus A Captain. He represents pilots in FAA certificate action matters and serves as a consultant and expert witness for aviation-related litigation.
He has taught aviation law courses for the past three years. Stolzer has been in academia for 28 years in administrative positions including department chair and associate dean. Stolzer holds a Ph.
He is widely published in aviation safety and quality areas, and has won and managed several grants. Stolzer has served on the Board of Trustees of the Aviation Accreditation Board International for 15 years, and chaired its Accreditation Committee from to Title: Professor Email: truongd erau. He received his Ph. He has strong expertise in transportation management, risk assessment and modeling, cloud computing and the Internet of Things, supply chain and logistics management, e-commerce, decision support, data mining, and research methodology.
He teaches data mining, operations research and decision-making, advanced statistics, structural equation modeling, logistics and supply chain management, and transportation management. His research interests include airline efficiency evaluation, airline and passenger segmentation, low cost carriers, the Internet of Things IoT for aviation, data mining for a complex and dynamic system, risk assessment model for sUAS, risk perception and behavioral intention models for passenger choice for airlines and airports, and data envelopment analysis model for SMS effectiveness.
Scott R. His primary responsibilities involve teaching graduate level courses in research methods, quantitative data analysis, and qualitative data analysis. Winter maintains an active research agenda, which focuses on pilot decision-making and consumer perceptions toward automation.
Winter completed his Ph. For his time in industry, Dr. In that role, he served as a company check airman and provided initial and recurrent training to company pilots.
Download CV. Degrees Non-Degree. Residency Six credit hours are gained through three, five-day annual residencies at the Daytona Beach campus.
Application Deadline The deadline for applications and all supporting documents is February 1st for the following August cohort. Educational Goals Graduates of the Ph. Specializations The four areas of specialization focus on: Aviation Safety: Students choosing this specialization will focus on managing risk culture through control of known and yet-to-be discovered techniques and safety applications in aviation.
Aviation Human Factors: Students choosing this specialization will focus on the capacity to design, conduct, and apply human factors and cognitive psychology research in aviation. Aviation Operations : Students choosing this specialization will focus on the work that emphasizes research capabilities in a global aviation marketplace while considering industry trends and innovations.
Intradisciplinary : For students with a broader interest in aviation, this specialization offers a cross-disciplinary approach to aviation where you work with your advisor to build a curriculum appropriate for a student's educational needs. Qualifying Exam Once a student has met course requirements, they are required to pass a two-day Qualifying Exam specifically crafted based on their research proposals and completed coursework.
Dissertation Students will likely spend far more time preparing for and writing their doctoral dissertation than they will in the virtual classroom.
0コメント